Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Supported by

McCain Camp Talks of Speedier Iraq Withdrawal — Or Not

By Larry Rohter July 22, 2008 2:29 pmJuly 22, 2008 2:29 pm

As Senator Barack Obama’s trip overseas moved from Iraq to Jordan on Tuesday, Senator John McCain was campaigning in Rochester, N.H., a far less exotic location, and struggling to compete for press attention. Responding to the wall-to-wall coverage of Mr. Obama’s activities in the Middle East, Mr. McCain’s staff and surrogates ratcheted up their attacks on the presumed Democratic nominee during a conference call Tuesday morning with reporters.

Speaking for Mr. McCain were his chief foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, and two members of Congress: Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas and Representative Heather Wilson of New Mexico. For almost a half hour, they referred to Mr. Obama’s positions and statements in scathing terms that ranged from “ludicrous” to “irresponsible.”

Some of the attacks reiterated the McCain campaign’s longstanding assertion that Mr. Obama lacks foreign policy credentials, albeit in more sarcastic language. Mr. Scheunemann mocked Mr. Obama for claiming that having attended junior high school in Indonesia and visited Pakistan over spring break while a college student provided him with insights into those Islamic societies.

“He refuses to credit General Petraeus and General Odierno for their leadership, he disparages their strategic judgment, and trumpets his own,” Mr. Scheunemann said, referring sarcastically to Mr. Obama’s service in the Illinois legislature and as a community organizer. “What is Senator Obama’s judgment based on?”

There were also some new twists, however. These were directly related to developments since Mr. Obama arrived in Afghanistan over the weekend, the starting point of a trip that will continue until the end of this week and include stops in Israel, Germany, France and Britain.

In an interview with a German magazine, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki appeared to endorse Mr. Obama’s stated intention to withdraw American troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office, saying that he “who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.” But Mr. McCain’s surrogates disputed that notion.

“He’s not listening to the whole of what the Iraqi government is saying, he’s hearing what he wanted to hear and what he thought would help him politically,” Representative Wilson said of Mr. Obama. “He has his finger in the wind, trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing, and he is not leading,” she added. “He heard what he wanted to hear from the Iraqi government, without any context around it.”

Nevertheless, the Maliki interview has created a problem for the McCain camp, and the surrogates’ remarks reflected that. At first, they seemed to be endorsing the notion of a timeline, with Representative Wilson saying that Mr. McCain would “like troops to come home earlier than 16 months if the conditions allowed it.”

But when reporters seized on that statement, they then suggested that Mr. McCain will agree to a withdrawal of American troops only when General Petraeus or his successor deem it appropriate to leave.

Rather than the “artificial and arbitrary timetable” Mr. Obama has proposed, an American withdrawal should be contingent upon two things, Mr. Scheuemann said: “the advice of our military commanders and conditions on the ground,” especially “the ability of Iraqi forces to provide for their own security.” It was not clear from his statement whether the Iraqi government would also have a voice in making such a determination.

“The important thing is that our troops come home with victory and our vital national interests secured,” Representative Wilson said when asked about her earlier statement. “That is the difference between John McCain and Senator Obama.”

“Mr. Scheunemann mocked Mr. Obama for claiming that having attended junior high school in Indonesia and visited Pakistan over spring break while a college student provided him with insights into those Islamic societies.”

Why in the world is personal experience – as opposed to heavily biased top American military figures – so devalued? Isn’t it important to have the perspectives of people who actually live in these countries? Don’t they have far more of a certain type of knowledge about the situation in their country than an American foreigner possibly can?

“The important thing is that our troops come home with victory and our vital national interests secured,” Representative Wilson said when asked about her earlier statement. “That is the difference between John McCain and Senator Obama.”

Yes, at the cost of how many more lives and how much more money we will have to pour into Iraq? How much does Mr. Wilson has vested interest in Iraqi oil?

This article clearly shows that John McCain and his campaign can only criticize Barack Obama. They offer no new ideas and they only offer a policy which could be very damaging to the United States, Iraq and the Middle East. Don’t they get it? Iraq wants the USs to leave so they can move on. Iraq wants a timetable, subject to anything degrading to a point that makes a timetable impossible. Iraq does not want to wait for a US victory (whatever that is as John McCain has not defined it).

Making sarcastic remarks about Barack Obama and not offering any substantial plan that would be better than what Barack Obama has to offer; accomplishes absolutely nothing. If anything else, McCain is looking less presidential and more desperate.

One last note, if Barack Obama lacks foreign policy credentials, then why is the current administration looking at a “time horizon” for a pull out and Iraq showing interest in one?

I hate to tell Heather and Sam this, but ultimately the Iraqi’s are going to make this decision. Not John McCain. If they tell us to leave we are left with two choices, either leave or basically accept this sham war for what it is, a colonial occupation.

Unfortunately for the Republicans, it appears the Iraqi’s have now decided it’s almost time for the US to leave.

McCain may not like it but the US will be out of Iraq within two years. Anyone who can’t see that, is fooling themselves.

Only Nixon could go to China. The problem Obama would have if he is elected is that the people on the right will loudly criticize him whenever he gets the troops out of Iraq. It may always be too early for some people if Obama is President. McCain would get criticism every day the troops are still in Iraq, but he would have much broader support and credibility if he started bringing home the troops early. I think this highlights one of Obama’s credibility issues with at least the right of center segment of the American people. Like McGovern and Carter. Doesn’t matter if Obama is correct.

Obama is in Iraq, and McCain keeps fretting about it. And ranting about it.
Among other things, This trip was a smart campaign stop.
The fact that Mccain is crying protest so loudly seems to suggest that he knows his campaign just got whipped badly this week.
The out of proportion ranting from the GOP does not help them much.

Obama’s people had him going to the center of the Iraq conflict and the war on terror, McCains people sent him to meet Rudey G at Yankee stadium.

Maybe McCain should fire his campaign strategists-again. How many times has McCain shuffled the staff?

Whatever happened to the notion that it was civilians-the government, the Congress, the voters-who decided foreign policy and not the generals? If generals dictated policy, would we really need politicians? If generals had had their way, wouldn’t Kennedy have blown Cuba sky-high in 1964? If generals dictated policy would we ever leave Iraq? “Victory” is an outdated word. Having survived Vietnam you would expect that Senator McCain would know this. Here is a candidate who offers no parameters for victory, yet claims we cannot leave Iraq until we achieve it. What is victory in Iraq? Is it political? Is it peace? Instead of cowering behind Petraeus and other generals who merely report on security situations and how many troops it will require to sustain them, let’s hear about what all these lives are supposed to be gaining us in Iraq.

The idea that somehow General Petraeus and other military commanders are some sort of thermometer and they can tell us when we should leave Iraq is idiotic. Generals, soldiers, should fight the wars we give them, end them when our goals change. A war is only as good as the cause behind it: the goals we aim to achieve by sacrificing. We learned long ago that Iraq was never worth fighting. We’ve given the Iraqis years, thousands of lives, billions of dollars. Enough.

Far be it for me to make a suggestion to the McCain camp, but they need to chill out. They seem as if they are in a panic. They are resorting to kitchen sink strategies:

– Let’s launch ad hominem attacks on Obama and ridicule him by calling him irresponsible and making fun of his experience;

– Let’s be contradictory by disparaging Obama’s timeline and then suggesting one that may be faster than his;

– Let’s use time tested cliches without thinking through whether or not they have any basis in fact (“He’s not listening,” “He’s hearing what he wanted to hear and what he thought would help him politically,” “He has his finger in the wind, trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing, and he is not leading,” etc.;

They need to take some time to come up with some adult responses that make it sound like McCain actually has a foreign policy.

McCain said yesterday our troops could be out of Iraq within 2 years. But McCain will have our troops leave as Iraqis take over. McCain campaign to Joe Klein of Time Magazine said Iraqi government’s opinion of course matters. McCain’s stance is based on results of the Iraqi military taking over. Obama’s stance isn’t based on the iraqi military taking over. It is based on a political gimmack without taking in results on the ground. McCain has months ago called for more troop cuts by general petreaus in iraq. The media didn’t report that.

this argument is incoherent. they’re characterizing obama’s plan for ending the iraq war as politically expedient because he’s trying to figure out what the american people think is the best way to secure our national interests (“putting his finger in the wind”). but then they’re saying “the difference between John McCain and Senator Obama” is that McCain cares about securing our “vital national interests” while obama apparently doesn’t. either obama cares about securing our national interests or he doesn’t. and, of course, he does, just like John McCain. they just have different plans for doing it. they should be honest rather than attempting to demonze obama through legalistic word play.

if we went down that road, we couldn argue that McCain isn’t leading but rather blindly following General Petraeus while Obama is leading by considering a wide variety of assessments on the situation in Iraq.

Today’s spokesmodel for McSame making sarcastic insults- this is news? What else could we expect from self-described “well-connected lobbyist” Steve Scheunemann? Which of his overseas clients is he speaking for when he whispers in McSame’s ear? McSame’s latest position on Iraq is sponsored by- which foreign interest?

The McCain camp is floundering. For all the crowing about the “ability to lead”, you wouldn’t think McCain and his advisers would stoop to undermining and condescending to the current leadership of Iraq, using Obama as a proxy.

It’s become clear that McCain has no salient policy on Iraq, and whats more, he doesn’t seem particularly driven by any desire to hone that policy there or elsewhere, including Afghanistan and Pakistan. His dismissal of the conflicts there, and his insistence on attacking Obama where he should be presenting a strategy of his own, are a bad indicator.

“The important thing is that our troops come home with victory and our vital national interests secured,” Representative Wilson said when asked about her earlier statement. “That is the difference between John McCain and Senator Obama.”
———–

Did anyone follow up with a question asking Representative Wilson to define what she means by victory and what vital national interests specifically we need to secure in Iraq? Allowing politicians to get away with statements like this which mean many, many different things to different audiences is irresponsible.

On a side note, I’d be interested to hear whether she is helping or hurting her own re-election chances in New Mexico by making appearances like this.

Those republicans have really gotten nasty. The language they used was tacky and childish. At least Obama criticizes his opponents with respect. I completely disagree with McCain and I think he is “hearing what he wants to hear” about Iraq. Heather Wilson is a fareweather fan, and she’s the one with her finger in the air. Disappointing behavior from the republican candidate.

“He’s not listening to the whole of what the Iraqi government is saying, he’s hearing what he wanted to hear and what he thought would help him politically,” Representative Wilson said of Mr. Obama…. “He heard what he wanted to hear from the Iraqi government, without any context around it.”

“For almost a half hour, they referred to Mr. Obama’s positions and statements in scathing terms that ranged from “ludicrous” to “irresponsible.”

Yet, when asked a simple question by THE TIMES: define winning – he could not.

Now that other countries are making it known that they actually dislike war and don’t want “the other wars” McCain predicts, McCain is PO’d that he was the one who urged/dared Obama to make the trip in the first place.

McCain – is lost daised and confused now that the Iraq govt. want the U.S. out of Iraq in the same time frame Obama has laid out – 16 months. McCain’s sole purpose for keeping troops in Iraq is not to secure Iraq but to have troops ready to deploy in Iran when and If needed. If we remove our troops from Iraq it makes it much tougher to attach Iran. Without troop in Iraq ready for re-deployment to Iran we could do nothing more then air strikes against Iran. We could never win a war against Iran without troops on the ground. Politically – no one in this country would support a war in Iran after bringing troops home from Iraq. Keeping U.S troops in Iraq has nothing to do with Iraq security – It’s all about IRAN!!

While poor old John McCain is frantically trying to marginalize Obama’s superb press coverage re his trip to Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama’s position on a phased withdrawal of US forces from Iraq over a sixteen month period is virtually endorsed by the Iraq political leadership. Now McCain is forced to play “me too” on this suject as well.

Here is one WWII veteran, serial no. 39619332, who is sick and tired of McCain crowing about his military experience. Let me remind this boring candidate that neither Franklin D. Roosevelt or Ronald Regan had military experiance, yet both performed very well during critical periods of their administrations. I don’t recall ever reading that military experience was am absolute requirement for presidential candidates.

Finally, McCain would be well-served to remember that over 60 per cent of we US citizens want out of Iraq!

Imagine if the French had thought it in their best interest to remain until we had a government that suited their ideals of what our government should do. We’d be speaking French like they do in Quebec.

Since the Iraqi government has expresed a desire to remove the troops then we should be doing that post haste. Staying there longer will only make them hate us more.

President Obama drew criticism on Thursday when he said, “we don’t have a strategy yet,” for military action against ISIS in Syria. Lawmakers will weigh in on Mr. Obama’s comments on the Sunday shows.Read more…